After #tonytigergate, companies go Pro Furry and the Daily Show gets involved.

by Patch O'Furr

Get ready to hack up a hairball about this, if you want furry fandom to get taken seriously without a speck of sexy humor about make-believe mascots. (Or if you’re prudish and think cartoon kink is worse than ISIS.) Stuff like this must have Disney’s defensive shields on maximum.

On the flip side, be amused or confused about a really dirty meaning for Tony’s bandana in gay hanky code. This is hilarious to strange, dark corners of the internet. Here’s a reference about it for those into Serious Cinema as much as Cereal Sin. In 1980’s Cruising, Al Pacino learns things as an undercover cop:

Tony the Tiger turns tail.

Behind the scenes with Tony’s social media team, all of this heat was too much to handle. Maybe they felt like it was Brand Vandalism… and this wasn’t even the first time this fall that Tony was target for a well organized prank. The first had nothing to do with furries- that PR crisis was fake, satirical ads.

Things came to a head in January 2016. They started blocking all furries en masse, whether they deserved it or not.

In short order, more corporate PR accounts jumped in to show tolerance against Furryphobia. Their free hype was quite a spectacle of capitalist opportunity, with a cheesy coating of fun for those who staffed the boring social media jobs.

@WitchyCats @CasualFennec I welcome all fans to my twitter feed. Scales, feathers, or fur, if you enjoy my tweets then welcome!

Now they’re coming down our rabbit hole for another story about the story. Of course they are; it’s pure clickbait. Let’s see where this leads, and be ready for another spoonful of deliciously tasteless comedy.

For the record, I love anarchic satire. I understand complaints about immaturity and harassment, but I won’t judge. Overall, companies benefit from exposure, and the fictitious mascot’s managers get paid to do more than a “drill” (like handling truly crazy angry customers – which furries aren’t). If you shouldn’t tweak a brand this way, then there might be no value in the world for bawdiness and satire. The courts of the land disagree.

The dirty tweeters are definitely motivated by parody/satire. See the “RPing with restaurants” bit. It’s in-jokes and meta-jokes about the machinery of PR. They’re having a go at the idea of a corporation having a personality (and sex life!?) Of course it’s also lowbrow internet trolling without much higher meaning. But if you can’t have a laugh at the expense of corporations who are responsible for much more sinister manipulation, well keep eating that Monsanto corn. PR needs satire like cereal needs milk.

John Harvey Kellogg founded a giant of the industrial food complex. As part of it’s wholesome values, he spread racist eugenics and preached that sex was an evil, dirty thing. It’s kinda funny to see his pussycat get rubbed wrong with off-color jokes that delight in defying taboo. It might have a little to do with “culture jamming.” Tony’s a big, tough cat anyhow – he can take care of himself.

Thanks for your observations, Patch! A few things have occurred to me:

First, I think people should remember that these social media accounts are usually managed by some poor person (often an intern) who has to stoically sift through all the complaints, hate, trolling, dumb questions, and the like.

Some of the tweets I’ve seen have been amusing, wink-wink, and funny, but a few have really been gross and creepy.

Personally, I think it’s often worth asking oneself if what you’re planning to tweet is something you’d be willing to say if you could see the face of the person behind the screenname.

Second, I think furries need to acknowledge that you can’t insist that people see your hobby as innocent and non-sexual one minute, and then make sexualized tweets to a corporate social media account the next. People who are upset about the fandom’s reputation need to think about how their own actions help to shape that reputation.

Third, I think furries as a community could stand to think more like the media sometimes, in order to take more control over how we’re portrayed.

Meaning, in this case, people need to realize that Gawker Media will be entirely too happy to “innocently” pretend not to understand irony, sarcasm, or satire if a “this group of people is ACTUALLY insane and weird” headline will generate more clicks and shares.

So–back to point two again–if you as an individual don’t want to be seen as somebody who actually wants to bang a cartoon mascot, you have to be more mindful of the ironic or satirical statements you make to that effect on social media.

Sadly, it’s very easy for statements and even jokes to be snipped, clipped, edited, or otherwise taken out of context, and you can’t always flawlessly anticipate or guard against this.

I wondered if furries could potentially take their power back by making fun of Gawker et al for not getting the joke/not understanding lulz. In some corners of the Internet, not understanding trolling/lulz is considered a capital offense. I wonder if we could play that card to our PR advantage, of if I’m just overthinking things again?

Anyway, I’m trying not to be a wet blanket, a prude, or a kink-shamer here. I’m just noticing that the fandom tends to care about its reputation, so that’s where I’m coming from here.

Hi troj, great comment. As to the first point, I definitely get it. Internet manners are shit. Be nice and try not to harm people in the way of a joke.

About art-prank statements I enjoyed thinking about the “Tony Is Back” website linked here. That one definitely had a purpose to make you think about the goodness of brands portraying truth and confidence. “Tony has lost his way, what should tony do” is poking you to self examine as a consumer and about what you’re sold. I think some of that was lost behind the shock value put up front by the news articles about it, and even the impressive production value of the parody. They did that with sex satire.

The front line person is always used to defuse criticism. For example if you criticize police brutality, are you anti-cop? I dont think its not part of the job of social media handlers to deal with off color behavior. I wouldn’t condescend to tell them to earn the pay but I would mention that budgeting for PR is useless if it isn’t noticed. As a job, at least they arent getting screamed at with customer service. I think that makes some grossness tame in perspective.

You’re 100% right you can’t simultaneously have this and claim innocence. My preference is to say, it’s not the same individuals saying it. Don’t make slippery slopes. And yes there are romantic themes, off color jokes etc but so what. Rather than hold up pretensions about it, better to shrug and focus on the intentions of people pointing it out. If its a documentary piece that seeks to understand, no problem. If its a clickbaity exploiter, point out how they are dishonest for money. Have outsiders prove themselves to get inside. And overall, chill out because it’s just another social group.

I think DIYness is underrated here. I dont often hear that term. In that respect, let corporations have reputations and let an alternative fan group have creative expression, sometimes even explicitly to make fun of conventional limits.